|
Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof.
To date I have seen no convincing proof that ‘Oumuamua is anything but what it seems to be - a chunk of interstellar rock that happened to pass through our Solar System. I would be very interested in seeing incontrovertible evidence otherwise.
(And no, a Hydrogen "fart" as it left the Solar System is not incontrovertible evidence)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Just because we ourselves have not learned enough about the physics of how the Universe works in order to invent a means of casual interstellar travel does not mean some mind elsewhere in the Universe hasn't thought it up.
I speculate that the astrnomers who talk about Rama (oops I mean, 'Omuamua) farting Hydrogen gas stretch to find mundane explanations for actual alien starship behavior due to their refusal to believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe, or that just because we haven't come up with technology to conveniently cross interstellar distances doesn't mean that some other brain out there in the universe has not discovered such a method, and we are merely ignorant of how the Universe works to a degree that we cannot conceive of anything.
There is such a thing as "falsification bias," where people who strongly disbelieve a certain preposition will work tirelessly to prove it false -- which is a GOOD thing, don't get me wrong! But sometimes I think people work too hard to so, when obvious evidence in support of a theory is staring them straight in the face.
The opposite of confirmation bias could be considered as "disconfirmation bias" or "falsification bias." This describes a tendency to seek out evidence that contradicts one's preconceived notions or beliefs, rather than selectively interpreting information that supports them. In your example, if someone harbors a strong disbelief in the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and actively seeks out evidence that disproves this notion, they may be exhibiting disconfirmation bias. This bias could lead them to discount or ignore data that suggests the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life or the feasibility of interstellar travel.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll take Occams Razor for 100, please. A starship is far more complex than a rock.
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't Rendezvous with Rama by Arthur C. Clarke?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and Ringworld was Larry Niven.
|
|
|
|
|
I got the two mixed up 
My OP was fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
I've always figured we're not the only ones beholden to Einstein's cage.
I'm no physicist, much less an astrophysicist, but bear with me anyway. 
I don't know if you are familiar with Caballero's prediction that there are 4 hostile alien civilizations within our solar system. There may be 4 evil alien civilizations in the galaxy | Space[^]
It's not hard and fast here, but based on his work, I think it's more than likely that there's at least one, if any of it even remotely holds.
Why haven't we seen them in any way that can be verified? So far it's all Loch Ness style photographs and conspiracy theories. Nothing of substance.
Maybe we're just not that interesting, but we do have one of the few habitable planets in the region. That should at least attract an invasive alien species, if nobody else.
Plus we light up space with everything from radio to laser transmissions.
Here's what I think. There mostly likely is life out there. And we'll most likely never contact it. Nor they us. Because of Einstein's cage. If there's a workaround, nobody has found it.
My $0.02.
I'd love to hear your thoughts about that.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Caballero's prediction that there are 4 hostile alien civilizations within our solar system. There may be 4 evil alien civilizations in the galaxy | Space[^]
You (not Caballero) confused Solar System and Milky Way. The Solar System consists of our Sun, its planets, dwarf planets, asteroids, comets, and what-have-you. The Milky Way contains approximately 100 billion stars.
Just a few reasons off the top of my head why we have not detected any other technological species around other stars (or life, for that matter):
- The Sun is one of the oldest Population III stars (containing large amounts of heavy elements) in our part of space. Given that much of our early technology relied on heavy elements, and assuming that is true of all early technology, it is possible that we are the oldest (and so far, the only) technological species in our part of the galaxy.
- We have been sending electromagnetic radiation out for only a short period, and even now are increasing the efficiency of our usage - beams vs broadcasts, etc. It could be that other technological species have gone even further along this route, and it is therefore almost impossible to "eavesdrop" upon them.
- A species that has invasive tendencies doesn't survive long enough to become an interstellar civilisation. If it does, it doesn't survive long enough to complete an interstellar voyage (at sub-light speeds).
- The economics of interstellar voyages make it impractical, even for dedicated explorers. No sane species will fund a voyage whose payoff (if ever) will come centuries in the future.
Reasons 3 & 4 would not apply if a practical superluminal warp drive were invented.
As for discovery of non-technological life in other star systems, we can just barely detect planets around other stars, and can analyze their atmospheres only in special cases. I submit that our technology is not quite good enough to detect life on extra-Solar planets (though it will be in the next few decades).
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: You (not Caballero) confused Solar System and Milky Way
I was going from my memory, which is often unreliable.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: We have been sending electromagnetic radiation out for only a short period, and even now are increasing the efficiency of our usage - beams vs broadcasts, etc. It could be that other technological species have gone even further along this route, and it is therefore almost impossible to "eavesdrop" upon them.
I forget who mentioned it a good while ago, but someone made a tremendous point: We've been broadcasting in the clear for a few decades, but our communications have since mostly been encrypted.
Once you bring in encryption, there is no discernable pattern. It all looks like random noise. Which is the intent.
If alien civilizations have been encrypting their communications (and there's few reasons to think they would not), analyzing whatever our radio-telescopes are picking up ain't gonna reveal anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: If alien civilizations have been encrypting their communications (and there's few reasons to think they would not), analyzing whatever our radio-telescopes are picking up ain't gonna reveal anything.
I am wondering whether you're making the assumption that radio telescopes receive the content of alien broadcasts, such as in the movie "Contact." Maybe they do. I myself am not a radio astronomer so I am not an expert in such things.
But even with encrypted transmissions you can still look at the spectrum and power spectrum of such emissions. If there is a lot of power in a small frequency range then that may be indicative of something. I mean, okay, spread spectrum is also in use, but only certain blocks of the EM spectrum are in use for communications/broadcasting, spread or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greetngs Kind Regards
I communicated w/ Dr. Loeb only recently. He was kind enough to reply. He ends his e-mails w/ a nice portrait link below. On his theories re/ alien visitors I replied w/ that below but did not receive reply.
Abraham-Avi-Loeb.png[^]
Kind Distinguished Sir :
Thank You for your informative reply. At the risk of taking advantage of your kind generosity w/ ignorant fools such as myself way I please inquire your appraisal of even put forward the notion namely a race one million years advanced would not need a billion years to travel the great distances but can do so as easily as we w/ our crude technology travel across the globe.
PS I am impressed by the drawing. May I inquire the artist. Is it a self portrait.
Thank You Kindly
|
|
|
|
|
Heh... they're probably seeking 'absolute truths'.
Your sequence reminds me of Rogue Trader where the ABC options of encountering a ship can be very similar.
I think to assume advanced beings haven't overcome what seems to be nature's fight/flight basic instinct is... an assumption.
For one, maybe they've never encountered anything that can digest or shoot them. Maybe they've never shot each other? I'd put that as pretty remote, but...
|
|
|
|
|
Brian C Hart wrote: I agree with Harvard professor, Avi Loeb[^]
However he is far from an unbiased observer.
Astronomer Avi Loeb Says Aliens Have Visited, and He's Not Kidding | Scientific American[^]
Brian C Hart wrote: I think aliens are out there. And I think they used the Sun as a "gravity assist" vs. the center of the Galaxy
The first part however is far different than the second part.
The first presumes that one just does some hypothesizing based on some very, very large numbers. So with 200 billion trillion stars it would seem likely that there is at least some microbes out there.
The second part however requires that those aliens are doing a lot with science and technology for which there is no evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Folks,
I wanted to do a non scientific "show of hands" so to speak...totally optional to participate, of course
Curious, what music playlist(s) help you get "in the zone" when you're coding or programming?
What's your personal opinion, does listening to certain music help you get in the zone / write code faster / do complex systems and software engineering better?
Do you personally think there is any merit to those studies, such as this one[^], this one[^], and this one[^], that seem to indicate in the affirmative?
Or what about this Reddit user's post[^] where he says music does NOT help?
Is it all just up to the beholder, or is there a real effect?
OKAY...GO!
Regards,
Brian Hart
|
|
|
|
|
Yes for Physics and Calculus it was Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here.
If you can't find time to do it right the first time, how are you going to find time to do it again?
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.4.0 (Many new features) JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: EventAggregator
|
|
|
|
|
I just replied just a few minutes ago to your Bach thread saying I'm in the "no music" camp. Music distracts me. I might tolerate music without any singing when I'm coding. But music with actual lyrics is absolutely out of the question.
|
|
|
|
|
same as 
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
I like progressive and trance when I code. It helps me stay focused for long periods.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Progressive house, I assume? Progressive rock wouldn't focus me at all: I'd end up listening instead of coding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It depends, Electronic music of all kind and some 80's rock.
80's rock is reassuring, a known variable in my mental state.
For example today :
Boards Of Canada - The Campfire Headphase
Above & Beyond : Acoustic at the Hollywood Bowl.
Plastikman : Musik
Dubstar : Goodbye.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
If I am learning... nothing.
If I am "just" working... yes.
Mainly no singing, about the type it might be electronic, it might be epic, it might be chill out, it might be white noise... It depends on the day and the mood.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Brian C Hart wrote: Do you personally think there is any merit to those studies, such as this one[^], this one[^], and this one[^], that seem to indicate in the affirmative?
Interestingly enough, not for coding. But, certain types of music can get me in the zone for working out. Then again, I don't really listen to music when coding as I want to "hear" my mind think. Working out is the exact opposite where music is a necessity.
Keep in mind I didn't click your links, but the mind works in associations with everything. Music may be one catalyst but associations are the root cause. If someone associated eating chocolate cake with coding then that would get them in the zone. So any study that simply looks at music alone is missing the actual picture.
Now, music can be a powerful association of course. A very powerful one, for reasons that would totally derail this chat. But the root is associations so the point I'm stressing here is they need to see the whole picture.
Jeremy Falcon
modified yesterday.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
